Author
|
Topic: Vote for policy on Disownment (Read 2144 times) |
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
 
|
 |
Vote for policy on Disownment
« on: 2003-08-23 02:47:52 » |
 |
Voting is now open for the policy of Disownment http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?action=voteIndex as documented at http://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/Disownment. Study of the discussions held on the policy are also available from the above referenced page.
The vote will remain active until a 60% or greater majority accepting or rejecting the policy is achieved, or until the number of votes and abstainments together make it impossible to establish a 60% position.
Members of the CoV are again reminded that they can establish their voting eligibility by establishing a reputation at http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?action=repIndex and are requested to update their reputation voting if they have not done so since the counters were reset.
Discuss the vote by replying to this thread.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Casey
admin
Adept
Gender: 
Posts: 343
Reputation: 7.49
Rate Casey
Revere the skeptic.
|
 |
Re:Vote for policy on Disownment
« Reply #1 on: 2003-08-23 10:22:11 » |
|
First off, I do not disagree with the policy on Disownment.
However, the following procedure referenced in this quote is one where I do have reservations:
"A member, on notification of Disownment, may appeal this to a panel comprised of six "solid Virians" under the chairmanship of the highest available reputed Virian who shall hold a casting vote, first at the time of the Disownment, and again at six months after the disownment and again at one year after the disownment. The ballot of this panel shall be secret, and its results binding."
It is my opinion that 6 months and again at one year is too long a period to wait for appealing Disownment. I'd rather the period be reduced to 3 months, then 6 months respectively. The process, in my opinion, will not suffer as a result. It will offer the Disowned individual the necessary time in which to reflect on their actions and how their actions were contrary to the benefit of the Church of Virus.
Kind regards,
Casey
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Vote for policy on Disownment
« Reply #2 on: 2003-08-23 16:18:34 » |
|
There are multiple arguments that can be made here.Firstly that Disownment is a very rare action, taken only when over a long period of time a member has failed to conform with the community, has engaged in behaviour causing harm to the reputation or members of the community and when the "solid Virians" consider, by means of a vote, that the problems are intractable and irremedial. Such problems are not likely to resolve themselves with rapidity.
Secondly, the action of Disownment is to protect the CoV and its membership from harm. Having a history of some harm (or disownment would not have occured) we should be cautious about reintroducing a possible agent of harm.
Thirdly, we have other methods, e.g. Silencing, and will introduce further "graduations" of access as it becomes technically feasible, which will be further detailed and voted on in the near future, to deal with members who fail to adhere to the community standards (e.g. prosletyzing, list-flooding, engaging in apologetics or slander, etc), and so cause the community harm, but where the problems are not perceived as intractable or irremedial. Such members will not be Disowned and the periods may be as short as a few days or as long as several months.
Fourthly, Disownment disassociates the member being Disowned from the community. This is not a punishment or condemnation, but more like a "no fault" divorce issued for incompatiblity. The Disowned member is in a condition no different from any other non-member of the CoV except that we impose a delay on readmission to the community to prevent further harm to the community by reraising issues which should have been closed by the Disownment.
Fifthly, some harms are cured only by time. And where the harms are so deep that the community feels that Disownment is necessary, 6 months is not a long time. That said, a vote has been established, to allow the community to establish the period in which a Disowned member should not be permitted to reapply for acceptance by the community.
This vote will be closed contemporaneously with the vote on disownment and the period receiving the greatest support at that time will be adopted.
Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Casey
admin
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 343
Reputation: 7.49
Rate Casey
Revere the skeptic.
|
|
Re:Vote for policy on Disownment
« Reply #3 on: 2003-08-25 15:12:41 » |
|
I'm curious about this poll currently open.
What I find interesting is this:
What period after disownment should ex-members be allowed to reapply for membership
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 months 11.35 (25.83%)
6 months 4.30 (9.78%)
1 year 21.22 (48.27%)
never 0.00 (0.00%)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per the Disownment article, the first time to appeal Disownment is at 6 months, then again at 1 year.
In that case, is the poll above in regards to the first or second appeal of Disownment?
Also, by what standards does a Virian become a "solid Virian"? What constitutes the prerequisites to be considered one of these "solid Virians"? Is there a particular score I need to become one of these "solid Virians"?
Also, what are my chances of receiving a fair and impartial judgement if I, or anyone for that matter, is brought up for Disownment? What if someone who is a "solid Virian" and I had a falling out; what would be the steps to prevent any misuse of the Disownment policy by the aforementioned "solid Virian"?
My opinion in this matter is that these and many more questions need to be addressed prior to this policy's implementation.
Finally, how long do polls stay open?
Regards,
Casey
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Vote for policy on Disownment
« Reply #4 on: 2003-08-25 17:08:01 » |
|
[Hermit 1]
[Casey 2]
[Hermit 3]
[Casey 4]
[Hermit 5]
[Casey 4] I'm curious about this poll currently open.
[Hermit 5] You shouldn't be. It was created when, despite our discussing this issue on IRC, when we were trying to settle the wording, and when I thought you had been satisfied, you surprised me by chosing to raise the issue again in your earlier letter here on this thread..
[Hermit 5] As you can see, on realizing that issue still concerned you, I opened a poll on the issue to allow those voting to express their opinions (and modified the wiki disownment document to reflect the fact that this issue was being voted upon as soon as I saw your post voicing concern about this. I also notified the list of this in my response at [Hermit 3].
[Casey 4] What I find interesting is this:
Quote:http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=;action=voteResults;idvote=36
What period after disownment should ex-members be allowed to reapply for membership
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 months 11.35 (25.83%)
6 months 4.30 (9.78%)
1 year 21.22 (48.27%)
never 0.00 (0.00%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
[Casey 4] Per the Disownment article, the first time to appeal Disownment is at 6 months, then again at 1 year.
[Hermit 5] Why is it "interesting"? As I explained earlier when you raised this on IRC, I originally merely accepted the 6 months period used by the "society of friends", without applying a lot of thought to the issue, as I considered that the 6 months delay they used from disownment to first oportunity to reapply for membership would be an appropriate period. Then you reiterated your concern over the duration of the period here, which, until your letter, I thought had been resolved whan I explained that 3 months was almost certainly too short. Given the degree of concern I perceived in your letter, I thought that it would be far more appropriate to put it before the membership to decide, rather than simply leaving my opinion in place.
[Hermit 5] Given that, on reconsidering the lower intimacy of communication in our situation (Internet) versus the "society of friends'" (IRL situation), I thought that perhaps even 6 months was maybe somewhat too soon, and seeing as I was putting the issue to the community to resolve anyway, I increased the offered range of periods from just the original six months, and 3 months that you had suggested to the range reflected above. And given the huge preponderance of support for a longer period, I'm rather glad that I offered the increased period, as evidently one year has by far the majority of the support amongst voters to-date. Not that I blame them, as, in my opinion, the issue of managing our public perception has taken far too much time already.
[Hermit 5] Does this latest "expression of concern" mean that you are suggesting that you would rather I had not put this period up to the community for resolution?
[Casey 4] In that case, is the poll above in regards to the first or second appeal of Disownment?
[Hermit 5] As clearly stated in all of the proposed policy documents, it is intended that there would be only one immediate appeal of a "disownment" (and if this occured, it would take place prior to the disownment occuring). At that point the member would be exactly like any other member of the public, except in so far as they would not be able to reapply for membership in the CoV until some period had passed (and of course, if they were ever accepted back into the community, people might remember what had happened before imposing a need to adhere to commitments not to reoffend). I really am not sure how else I should have labelled the poll, after all,
Quote:| What period after disownment should ex-members be allowed to reapply for membership |
seems to me to say that first the members become no longer members, then there is a period in which they can't reapply, and which this question centers about, whereafter they can reapply for membership. Would you have phrased it differently?
[Casey 4] Also, by what standards does a Virian become a "solid Virian"? What constitutes the prerequisites to be considered one of these "solid Virians"? Is there a particular score I need to become one of these "solid Virians"?
[Hermit 5] You might have noticed that the phrase "solid Virians" is a link, and had you clicked on it, or navigated up the document hierarch to policy, you would have discovered that the quoted phrase "solid Virians" leads to a proposed definition at http://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/SolidVirians which states:
Quote:| A solid Virian is a member of the Church of Virus in good standing, who has signed up on the Reputation System and who is regarded with a "Strong positive opinion" or better by fellow Virians. |
This is the case for around 25% of Virians on the Reputation system (as in general, we tend to respect each other a lot). The only way to lose such status is for a significant proportion of the community to lose respect for you - and potentially (according to another proposal under discussion at http://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/Voting), by displaying apathy and not voting. In addition, it is proposed that the Virian Council be able to establish this level from time to time. But for now the hardly elitist 7+ reputation rating is all that is required.
[Casey 4] Also, what are my chances of receiving a fair and impartial judgement if I, or anyone for that matter, is brought up for Disownment?
[Hermit 5] I'd hope that all Virians could be sufficiently unbiased to give you a fair trial. Otherwise the question of why they are respected must come to mind. Given that you have ranked your fellow Virians as:1 (0.00%)
2 (0.00%)
3 1 (3.45%)
4 2 (6.90%)
5 12 (41.38%)
6 2 (6.90%)
7 4 (13.79%)
8 2 (6.90%)
9 6 (20.69%) or, in other words, you have ranked 12 Virians as people whom you respect and thus eligable to participate, it seems to me that unless you are horribly out of synchronisation with the rest of the community, you don't really think you have anything to worry about.
[Casey 4] What if someone who is a "solid Virian" and I had a falling out; what would be the steps to prevent any misuse of the Disownment policy by the aforementioned "solid Virian"?
[Hermit] I'd expect the fact that it would take 4 votes to pass a motion on a committee of 7, means that I think you needn't concern yourself. I would suggest that if you don't trust your fellow Virians, particularly those who are regarded as respected by the voice of the community, to follow the "Virian Virtues" and eschew the "Senseless Sins", you really ought to be asking yourself what you are doing here at all.
[Casey 4] My opinion in this matter is that these and many more questions need to be addressed prior to this policy's implementation.
[Hermit 5] So you should vote no. The vast majority of those who have voted to date obviously disagree with you, and many I have spoken to, like me, wish we'd had a policy like this in place since it was first mooted and discussed back in the 1990s. But that is what voting is about. To determine the will of the community. Yes?
[Casey 4] Finally, how long do polls stay open?
[Hermit 5] That depends on the person establishing them as it has not yet been formalized. In this instance, as stated initially, the primary poll closing time will be determined by the polling results.
Quote:| The vote will remain active until a 60% or greater majority accepting or rejecting the policy is achieved, or until the number of votes and abstainments together make it impossible to establish a 60% position. |
In other words, sometime after the vote equals 60% of the equity, or if abstainments makes it impossible to achieve a 60% result, then the poll will be closed (I don't plan to sit and watch it so I may miss the exact instant). The motion will be carried if 60% of the voters support it. The secondary, related poll, will, as stated when it was establised, be closed simultaneously with the primary vote on the grounds that is should receive votes simulataneously with the first, and it relates to the same issue.
Hope that helped
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Vote for policy on Disownment
« Reply #5 on: 2003-08-25 22:05:18 » |
|
The policy of disownment is now accepted.
The minimum delay before a disowned member can reapply after a disownment takes effect is one year.
Should the CoV accept the policy of disownment as documented at http://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/Disownment
| Accept Disownment | 48.40 (76.01%) | | Reject Disownment | 8.70 (13.66%) | | I Abstain | 6.58 (10.33%) | | decisiveness | (39.71%) | | unvoted equity | (36.32%) | | voted equity | (63.68%) |
What period after disownment should ex-members be allowed to reapply for membership?
| 3 months | 12.78 (24.40%) | | 6 months | 11.43 (21.82%) | | 1 year | 20.94 (39.97%) | | never | 0.65 (1.25%) | | decisiveness | (8.15%) | | unvoted equity | (47.62%) | | voted equity | (52.38%) | [table] |
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Casey
admin
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 343
Reputation: 7.49
Rate Casey
Revere the skeptic.
|
|
Re:Vote for policy on Disownment
« Reply #6 on: 2003-08-26 10:36:49 » |
|
First I want to thank Hermit for answering some of the questions I posed.
Next, I'd like to discuss the polling process and the results of the polling process in regards to policy implementation.
Looking at this poll's results you can see how the results may be misconstrued in regards to it's 'actual' results vs. the results of the majority of those who voted. 25.72 or 47.77% of 'vote equity' wanted the period of disownment to be less than 1 year (either 3 or 6 months) vs the 20.79 or 38.61% of 'voted equity' that wanted the period to be 1 year. Take a look at the poll results for yourself:
What period after disownment should ex-members be allowed to reapply for membership
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 months 14.34 (26.63%)
6 months 11.38 (21.14%)
1 year 20.79 (38.61%)
never 0.79 (1.47%)
This begs the question in regards to why more than 47+% of the 'voted equity' which preferred a lesser time period of disownment fall to those who voted for a period of 1 year - which resulted in 38+% of 'voted equity'. In addition, more than 47.62% of those who may vote did not vote as is seen in the 'unvoted equity' line. This may be attributed to several factors; one of which is length of time a poll is opened. Shouldn't polls of policy be up for discussion longer than a period of 3 days; regardless of who opened the poll in the first place and what they have stated as it's deadline (refer to quote below)?
"Posted by: Hermit Posted on: 2003-08-23 00:47:52"
"Voting is now open for the policy of Disownment http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?action=voteIndex as documented at http://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/Disownment. Study of the discussions held on the policy are also available from the above referenced page."
"The vote will remain active until a 60% or greater majority accepting or rejecting the policy is achieved, or until the number of votes and abstainments together make it impossible to establish a 60% position."
Once again, both polls regarding Disownment were open for 3 days. A very short period in which the congregation had time to discuss the policy before it was, either, approved or disapproved. If we draw together policies with such haste, then we also may make mistakes that damage the congregation as whole, or on an individual basis. Motions regarding policy should be thoroughly discussed until all facets of that policy have been clearly examined without regard to who opened the discussion.
Regards,
Casey
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Vote for policy on Disownment
« Reply #7 on: 2003-08-26 11:54:11 » |
|
There was a discussion thread Casey.
Quote:| Discuss the vote by replying to this thread. |
Had members felt the need to discuss the issue further after the poll-opened before voting, then the poll would have been open longer. But because this issue has been discussed ad nauseam over the course of years, and been rethrashed in #virus and #viruspolicy recently, those who voted apparently didn't see the need to discuss it further.
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
|
Logged
